Markus--
You say:
In my opinion, the statement "If p(z)[A,B] > p(z)[B,A], then candidate B must be elected with zero probability" defines a _method_ and not a _criterion_ because:
[...]
I reply:
Fine. You don't have to convince me. If you say that that defines Schulze's method, then it defines Schulze's method. No argument from me.
You continue:
Therefore, what you call "BeatpathWinner" or "SSD" or "CSSD" are only different tie-breaking strategies for the Schulze method that I proposed in 1997.
I reply:
Then you're saying that BeatpathWinner is an instance of Schulze's method. How about this method:
MajorityBeatpathWinner:
X has a majorilty beatpath win against Y if there's a majority beatpath from X to Y, and the strongest beatpath from X to Y is stronger than the strongest beatpath from Y to X.
A candidate wins if no one has a majority beatpath win against him/her.
[end of MajorityBeatpathWinner definition]
This is also an instance of Schulze's method, as you define it above. Schulze's method is a very broad family of methods indeed :-)
And that's not even counting the earlier version(s) that used beat-and-tie paths instead of beatpaths.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
